Part 11

“A very odd and very gross injustice appears to have been attempted in the University of Edinburgh. In that University the lady medical students are taught in a separate class,--not from any wish of their own, but through the delicacy of the professors. In the chemical class, Miss Edith Pechey gained the third place, and was first of the first year’s students, the two men who surpassed her having attended the class before. The four students who get the highest marks receive four Hope Scholarships,--scholarships founded by Dr Hope some years ago out of the proceeds of a very popular _ladies’ class_ of chemistry, with the success of which he had been much gratified. Yet Miss Edith Pechey was held by the professor not to be entitled to the third scholarship, and omitting her name, he included two men whom she had beaten, and who stood fourth and fifth in the examination, his excuse being that the women are not part of the University class, because they are separately taught. Yet Dr Crum Brown awards Miss Pechey a bronze medal, to which only members of the University class are said to be entitled! It is quite clear that such a decision cannot stand. To make women attend a separate class, for which they have to pay, we believe, much higher fees than usual, and then argue that they are out of the pale of competition because they do so, is, indeed, too like the captious schoolmaster who first sent a boy into the corner and then whipped him for not being in his seat.”

_Spectator_, April 9, 1870.

“The letter Miss Pechey addressed to us the other day was written in an admirable spirit, and must insure her the hearty sympathy of all, whatever their opinions upon the points in question. She has done her sex a service, not only by vindicating their intellectual ability in an open competition with men, but still more by the temper and courtesy with which she meets her disappointments. Under any view of the main question, her case is a hard one, for it is clear both she and the other lady students were led to attend the classes under the misapprehension of the privileges to which they were admissable. If the University intended to exclude ladies from the pecuniary advantages usually attached to successful study, the intention should have been clearly announced. Miss Pechey, in the spirit of a true student, says she is abundantly repaid for her exertions by the knowledge she has acquired; but it is none the less hard that, having been encouraged to labour for a coveted reward, and having fairly won it, she should be disqualified by a restriction of which no warning had been given her.”

_Times_, April 25, 1870.

“There are probably few persons who did not learn with regret the decision of the Edinburgh Senatus in respect of the Hope Scholarships. It is not pleasant that such a story of, at least, seeming injustice should circulate through foreign universities, to the discredit of our own, for there cannot be much doubt as to the view that will be taken of the case by those nations--now forming the majority in Europe--who have admitted women to their medical colleges on terms of exact fairness and equality with their other students.... A medical contemporary argues that this affair proves how unwise it was to admit women to the University of Edinburgh--such admission being, as is asserted, the natural source of ‘constant squabbles.’ But most unprejudiced people, judging the case at first sight, would surely rather see here the evil of a partial, restricted, and permissive legislation. If women have a claim to medical education at all, they have exactly the same claim as men; if they are to be received as students at all, they must certainly be treated with even-handed justice, and not as social or rather academical _pariahs_, to whom the bare crumbs of instruction are vouchsafed as a grace and bounty; while all the honours and rewards are to be reserved to their male competitors. Looking at the thing for a moment, merely in the interests of the young men, and as a question of expediency, we cannot imagine anything much worse for their moral guidance than to find that women are indeed to compete with them, but so shackled that they can never win; or rather that, if they do win, the prizes will be snatched from their grasp and given to men whom they have beaten. We have heard that, in both classes where the ladies have this year studied, a very unusual access of zeal and energy has been noticed among the gentlemen in the other section of the class--a happy effect of such competition, which has often been observed in the mixed colleges of America, and which surely need not be neutralised here by the providence of the Senatus.”

_Scotsman_, April 15, 1870.

“The Senatus has, by a small majority, confirmed Professor Crum Brown’s decision with regard to Miss Pechey and the Hope Scholarship, on the grounds previously presumed by us. But these grounds, if so they may be called, are in our opinion insufficient to deprive Miss Pechey of the Scholarship. Whatever may be our views regarding the advisability of ladies studying medicine, the University of Edinburgh professed to open its gates to them on equal terms with the other students; and unless some better excuse be forthcoming in explanation of the decision of the Senatus, we cannot help thinking that the University has done no less an injustice to itself than to one of its most distinguished students.”

_British Medical Journal_, April 16, 1870.

NOTE J, p. 96.

For the credit of the profession, I append also the following indignant protest from the chief medical paper:--

“There are very varying opinions abroad in the medical profession and among the public, as to the advisability of allowing women to practise medicine. There are still more serious and widely-spread doubts as to the possibility of educating ladies in the same lecture rooms and dissecting rooms with male students. But, until last week, we were not aware that any one in the profession, or out of it, held that the mere fact of ladies wishing to be educated in common with men, in order that they might make sure of receiving the highest and most thorough scientific training, justified those who held contrary opinions in loading them with abuse and vulgar insult. It has been reserved for Dr Laycock, professor in the famous University of Edinburgh, to set an example which, we trust, even the least courteous and gentlemanly of first-year’s students will hesitate to follow.... We shall only remark that if the coarsest of those few students who still keep alive the bad traditions of the Bob Sawyer period had given utterance to the insinuations which were used by this distinguished Professor, we should simply have shrugged our shoulders, and concluded that the delinquent would be at once expelled with ignominy from his school. Unfortunately there are no such punishments for highly-placed men like Dr Laycock, but at the least we can express the deep indignation and disgust which we are certain every gentleman in the profession must feel at the outrage of which he has been guilty.”

_Lancet_, April 30, 1870.

NOTE K, p. 101.

The following are the papers referred to in the text:--

(1.)--_Letter from the Lady Students._

“MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,--We, the undersigned registered students of medicine, beg to lay before you the following facts, and to request your kind attention to them:--

“On applying in the usual course for students’ tickets of admission to attend the practice of the Royal Infirmary, we were informed by the clerk that the Managers were not prepared to issue tickets to _female_ medical students. We earnestly request you to reconsider this decision on the following grounds:--

“1. That the authorities of the University of Edinburgh and of the School of the College of Physicians and Surgeons have admitted our right to study medicine with a view to graduation.

“2. That an important and indispensable part of medical education consists in attending the practice of a medical and surgical hospital, and that the regulations of the Licensing Boards require, as part of the curriculum of study, two years’ attendance at a ‘general hospital which accommodates not fewer than eighty patients, and possesses a distinct staff of physicians and surgeons.’

“3. That the only hospital in Edinburgh possessing the required qualifications is the Royal Infirmary, and that exclusion from that institution would therefore preclude the possibility of our continuing our course of medical study in this city.

“4. That, in the present state of divided opinion on the subject, it is possible that such a consummation may give satisfaction to some; but we cannot suppose that your honourable Board would wish to put yourselves in the attitude of rendering null and void the decisions of the authorities of the University of which we are matriculated students, and of the School of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where we are now attending the classes of anatomy and surgery.

“5. That it has been the invariable custom of the Managers to grant tickets of admission to students of the University and of Surgeons’ Hall, and that, as far as we are aware, no statute of the Infirmary limits such admission to students of one sex only.

“6. That the advertised terms on which the wards of the Infirmary are open to all registered and matriculated students were such as to leave no doubt on our minds that we should be admitted; if, therefore, our exclusion should be finally determined, we shall suffer great pecuniary loss and damage by this departure of the Managers from their advertised regulations.

“7. That if we are granted admission to the Infirmary by your honourable Board, there are physicians and surgeons on the hospital staff who will gladly afford us the necessary clinical instruction, and find no difficulty in doing so. In support of the above assertion, we beg to enclose the accompanying papers, marked A. and B.

“8. That we are fellow-students of systematic and theoretical surgery with the rest of Dr Watson’s class in Surgeons’ Hall, and are therefore unable to see what legitimate objection can be raised to our also attending with them his hospital visit.

“9. That a large proportion of the patients in the Infirmary being women, and women being present in all the wards as nurses, there can be nothing exceptional in our presence there as students.

“10. That in our opinion no objection can be raised to our attending clinical teaching, even in the male wards, which does not apply with at least equal force to the present instruction of male students in the female wards.

“11. That we are unable to believe it to be in consonance with the wishes of the majority of the subscribers and donors to the Infirmary (among whom are perhaps as many women as men) that its educational advantages should be restricted to students of one sex only, when students of the other sex also form part of the regular medical classes.

“We beg respectfully to submit the above considerations to the notice of your honourable Board, and trust that you will reconsider your recent decision, which threatens to do us so great an injury, and that you will issue directions that we, who are _bona fide_ medical students, registered in the Government register by authority of the General Council of Medical Education and Registration of the United Kingdom, be henceforth admitted to your wards on the same terms as other students.--We are, my Lord and Gentlemen, yours obediently,

“SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE, MARY EDITH PECHEY, ISABEL J. THORNE, MATILDA C. CHAPLIN, HELEN EVANS, MARY A. ANDERSON, EMILY BOVELL.”

“November 5, 1870, 15 Buccleuch Place.”

November 5, 1870.

_Paper A._--“We, the undersigned physicians and surgeons of the Royal Infirmary, desire to signify our willingness to allow female students of medicine to attend the practice of our wards, and to express our opinion that such attendance would in no way interfere with the full discharge of our duties towards our patients and other students.--J. HUGHES BENNETT, GEORGE W. BALFOUR, PATRICK HERON WATSON.”

In _paper B_, Dr Matthews Duncan and Dr Joseph Bell expressed their readiness, if suitable arrangements could be made, to teach the female students in the wards separately.

(2.)--_Letter from, Dr Handyside and Dr Watson._

November 5, 1870.

“MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,--As lecturers in the Edinburgh Medical School, we beg most respectfully to approach your honourable Board, on behalf of the eight female students of this school whom, we understand, you object to admit to the practice of the Royal Infirmary. On their behalf we beg to state:--

“1. That they are regularly registered students of medicine in this school.

“2. That they are at present attending, along with the other students, our courses of anatomy, practical anatomy, demonstrations of anatomy, and systematic surgery, in the school at Surgeons’ Hall.

“3. That as teachers of anatomy and surgery respectively, we find no difficulty in conducting our courses to such mixed classes composed of male and female students, sitting together on the same benches; and that the presence of those eight female students has not led us to alter or modify our course of instruction in any way.

“4. That the presence of the female students, so far from diminishing the numbers entering our classes, we find both the attendance and the actual numbers already enrolled are larger than in previous sessions.

“5. That in our experience in these mixed classes the demeanour of the students is more orderly and quiet, and their application to study more diligent and earnest, than during former sessions, when male students alone were present.

“6. That, in our opinion, if practical bedside instruction in the examination and treatment of cases is withheld from the female pupils by the refusal to them of access as medical students to the practice of the Infirmary, we must regard the value of any systematic surgical course thus rendered devoid of daily practical illustration, as infinitely less than the same course attended by male pupils, who have the additional advantage of the hospital instruction under the same teacher.

“7. That the surgical instruction, being deprived of its practical aspect by the exclusion of the female pupils from the Infirmary, and therefore from the wards of their systematic surgical teacher, the knowledge of these female students may very reasonably be expected to suffer, not only in class-room examinations, but in their capacity to practise their profession in after life.

“8. That our experience of mixed classes leads us to the conviction that the attendance of the female students at the ordinary hospital visit, along with the male students, cannot certainly be more objectionable to the male students and the male patients than the presence of the ward nurses, or to the female patients than the presence of the male students.

“9. That the class of society to which these eight female students belong, together with the reserve of manner, and the serious and reverent spirit in which they devote themselves to the study of medicine, make it impossible that any impropriety could arise out of their attendance upon the wards as regards either patients or male pupils.

“In conclusion, we trust that your honourable Board may see fit, on considering these statements, to resolve not to exclude these female students from the practice of, at all events, those physicians and surgeons who do not object to their presence at the ordinary visit along with the other students.

“Such an absolute exclusion of female pupils from the wards of the Royal Infirmary as such a decision of your honourable Board would determine, we could not but regard as an act of practical injustice to pupils who, having been admitted to the study of the medical profession, must have their further progress in their studies barred if hospital attendance is refused them.--We are, my Lord and Gentlemen, your obedient servants,

“P. D. HANDYSIDE, PATRICK HERON WATSON.”

At a meeting of the lecturers of the Extra-mural School, held in Surgeons’ Hall, on Wednesday, Nov. 9, the following resolution was proposed and carried, a corresponding communication being laid before the Managers at their meeting on Saturday, Nov. 12, 1870:--

“That the extra-mural lecturers in the Edinburgh Medical School do respectfully approach the Managers of the Royal Infirmary, petitioning them not to offer any opposition to the admission of the female students of medicine to the practice of the institution.”

The following letter was also submitted at the next meeting:--

“15 Buccleuch Place, Nov. 13, 1870.

“MY LORD AND GENTLEMEN,--To prevent any possible misconception, I beg leave, in the name of my fellow-students and myself, to state distinctly that, while urgently requesting your honourable Board to issue to us the ordinary students’ tickets for the Infirmary (as they alone will ‘qualify’ for graduation), we have, in the event of their being granted, no intention whatever of attending in the wards of those physicians and surgeons who object to our presence there, both as a matter of courtesy, and because we shall be already provided with sufficient means of instruction in attending the wards of those gentlemen who have expressed their perfect willingness to receive us.--I beg, my Lord and Gentlemen, to subscribe myself your obedient servant, SOPHIA JEX-BLAKE.”

“To the Honourable the Managers of the Royal Infirmary.”

NOTE L, p. 102.

As ballads are said to be even more significant than laws of the popular feeling, I do not apologise for appending the following:--

THE CHARGE OF THE FIVE HUNDRED;

A LAY OF MODERN ATHENS.

(_Suggested by a recent Students’ Song, containing the following verse_:--

“_The little band plied the battering ram, With General Blake at its head, When ‘specials’ rose five hundred strong, And raised the siege--they fled, Brave Boys!_”)

* * * * *

ONCE more the trumpets sound to arms! Once more ring forth war’s wild alarms! Once more be Scotia’s host poured forth To guard the bulwarks of the North-- The foe is o’er the Tweed! Bring forth the banner Flodden saw, Rear high the standard of the war! Let every Gael in battle stand, To drive the invader from the land-- Speed to the rescue, speed!

What mean the rushing footsteps fleet? What mean the squadrons in the street? “Five hundred specials” now appearing-- Five hundred voices hoarsely cheering, Wild and disorderly! Strange oaths pollute the evening air, Foul jests the banners proudly bear; What mean these bands in fierce array? Champions of “delicacy” they, And manly modesty.

Then marked the bard who stood afar The gallant leaders of the war-- The plumèd crest of Andrew Wood, Who for his sons in battle stood, A Christison hard by! A Turner, Laycock, Lister too, All met for deeds of derring-do; Gillespie, Douglas (Oh, that shame Should fall on that time-honoured name!), Dun-Edin’s chivalry.

To arms! to arms! the foe is nigh, “Five hundred specials” do or die! Admiring Europe’s eyes are cast On Scotia’s greatest fight, and last, O’er her Infirmary! Press on! press on! Immortal gods! What matter if o’erwhelming odds Make others blush--_they_ know no shame, “Brave boys!” led on by chiefs of name To glorious victory!

The foe at last! With modest mien And gentle glance, at length are seen The seven women, whom to crush The noble hundreds onward rush, Undaunted to the fray! What if in idle tales of yore The man to guard the woman swore! Such trash is bygone!--_now_ men stand To guard their _craft_ from female hand, In nineteenth century!

“_Women_ to claim _our_ lordly state!” Cries Reverend Phin in fierce debate. “_Women_ to strive _our_ gains to share!” Shrieks Andrew Wood in wild despair, “While five fair sons have I!” “That _English_ girls should thus aspire!” Quoth Christison in Scottish ire. “Though their princess to Scotland come, We’ll drive these errant damsels home, For hospitality!”

“Great is Diana!” loudly cry, Be imprecations heard on high! Be mud upgathered from the street, And flung with ribald oaths, to greet The dreadful enemy! Seven women yield, they must confess On t’other side is _major vis_; Glorious Five hundred, O rejoice! Swell, each “brave boy” with tuneful voice, Pæans of victory!

_Scotsman_, Feb. 10, 1871.

NOTE M, p. 103.

The following letter is an excellent illustration of the indignation felt by the more manly students at the events referred to:--

“EDINBURGH, November 19, 1870.

“SIR,--As a certain class of medical students are doing their utmost to make the name of medical student synonymous with all that is cowardly and degrading, it is imperative upon all those who wish to be regarded as men, either individually or collectively, to come forward and express, in the strongest possible terms, their detestation of the proceedings which have characterised and dishonoured the opposition to ladies pursuing the study of medicine in Edinburgh. In the name, then, of all that is courteous and manly, I, as a student of medicine, most indignantly protest against such scenes as were enacted at the College of Surgeons on the evenings of Thursday and Friday last, and indeed on several occasions during the week.

“I would it were possible to point out to public execration the movers and actors in such scenes; but it is difficult to decide where the responsibility begins.

“Are only the hot-headed youths to be blamed who hustle and hoot at ladies in the public streets, and by physical force close the College gates before them? Or are we to trace their outrageous conduct to the influence of the class room, where their respected professor meanly takes advantage of his position as their teacher to elicit their mirth and applause, to arouse their jealousy and opposition, by directing unmanly inuendoes at the lady students? If such conduct be permissible on the part of the professors, alas for the school whose teachers have not even but one halfpennyworth of manliness to their intolerable deal of nastiness, or boasted philanthropy, as the case may be, and whose students crowd the academic precincts to hustle, hoot at, cover with mud, and even to strike at, ladies who have always shown themselves to be gentle and noble women.